Chapter 20 Notes - War, Terrorism, and Violence

Chapter 20: War, Terrorism, and Violence

This chapter discusses different views on how morality relates to and should guide decisions regarding war. Key questions explored include when war is justified and how to approach violence from a moral perspective.

Three Views on Morality and War

1. Realism
  • Definition: Rejects the application of morality in war.
  • Core Argument: Morality has no place in guiding warfare; moral norms don't apply to states.
  • Goal of a State in War: To pursue state interest above all else.
  • Implication: States are not held accountable for actions during war on moral grounds, regardless of how bad those actions are.
2. Pacifism
  • Definition: Rejects all forms of war in their entirety.
  • Core Argument: All forms of war are bad and unjustified; people should never participate in war, regardless of the reason.
  • Reasons for Opposing War:
    • War produces more bad than good.
    • War causes the deaths of humans, violating their rights.
3. Just War Theory
  • Definition: A doctrine stating that war is sometimes morally permissible if it meets certain conditions and requirements.
  • Core Argument: In certain situations, such as self-defense, war is morally permissible.
  • **Conditions for Engaging in a Just War (Ad Bellum): ** * Just Cause: The reason for going to war must be just and for a good reason, such as self-defense or protecting innocent lives.
    • Proper Authority: The war must be sanctioned by a proper authority.
    • Right Intention: The war should be fought with good intentions.
    • Last Resort: War should be a last resort, pursued only after all other options have been exhausted.
    • Proportionality: The good that you are fighting for must outweigh the bad that will result from the war.
    • Reasonable Chance of Success: There must be a reasonable chance of winning the war.

Key Concepts

1. Just War Theory (In-Depth)
  • Core Principle: War can be morally justified but only under strict conditions, such as self-defense or protecting innocent lives.
  • Requirements: It must be fought with the right intentions and limited by moral rules.
  • Quote: "The just war theory is a doctrine that war may be morally permissible under stipulated conditions. It is centuries old attempt to understand how war and enduring form of systematic killing can be reconciled with our moral presumptions against killing. It specifies when resorting to war may be morally justified in how armed conflict should be conducted to meet the minimal demands of morality."
2. Terrorism
  • Definition: The intentional use of violence against noncombatants to achieve political goals.
  • Ethical Stance: Most ethical theories condemn terrorism because it deliberately targets innocent lives.
  • Justification: There is virtually no argument that justifies terrorism.
  • Example: 9/11, where thousands of innocent lives were targeted.
  • Quote: "Acts of terrorism are clearly meant to exclusively favor a specific segment of population. Everyone is deliberately not considered."
3. Torture
  • Ethical Stance: Unlike terrorism, it can be argued that torture can possibly be justified in some extreme cases.
  • Ticking Bomb Scenario:
    • Scenario: A bomb will soon detonate in a major American city, killing a hundred thousand innocent people. The only way to prevent this is to torture the terrorist who planted the bomb until he reveals its location.
    • Question: Would it be morally permissible to waterboard or electrocute him until he talks?
  • Utilitarianism:
    • Supports torture in the ticking bomb case because it saves more lives.
    • Focuses on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing harm.
    • Justifies causing pain to one person if it prevents greater suffering for many.
  • Kantian Ethics:
    • Torture is always wrong because it treats a person as a means and violates moral duty, regardless of the outcome.

Major Ethical Questions

  1. Can violence ever be justified if it targets innocent people?
  2. Does using torture to save lives ever outweigh the moral cost?

Discussion Points

  • The presentation highlighted the need to consider the source reporting the events and the potential biases when evaluating the ethical implications of war, terrorism, and torture.
  • The Ukraine-Russian war was mentioned as an example of the complexities of applying moral standards in real-world situations.
  • The term "terrorist" and its application are heavily debated, leading to the question of who gets to be labeled a terrorist and under what circumstances.
  • The moral responsibility of citizens living in a democratic state that may be involved in war, terrorism, or torture was brought up. To what extent is putting specific leaders into power and embedding them to represent the country a moral imperative?